"Germany is Pregnant with the Social Revolution"

The reading that I did for this assignment was "A Call to the Workers of the World" by Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, Klara Zetkin and Franz Mehring. Personally, I think it is interesting to learn about the life of Rosa Lievknect in connection to this article. She was highly educated and headed various revolts against multiple governments since the 1870s. She was imprisoned multiple times and ultimately executed for her stances. In August of 1914, Rosa Luxemburg along with the other authors of this particular piece founded the Die Internationale group (or the Spartacus League), which was well-known for publishing articles criticizing the Bolsheviks and warning of dictatorship. They generally wrote to move the working class to revolt and take power. Therefore, by 1918 (when this was written), Rosa and her counterparts were well-known and accepted as leaders by a large group of the proletariat. They were trusted and admired by their followers.

Written in 1918, this marks both the end of World War One and the beginnings of the German Proletariat Revolution. "Europe has been ruined by this damnable slaughter. Twelve million bodies cover the gruesome scenes of this imperialistic crime." Specifically, this piece was written soon after Rosa Luxemburg was released from jail and while she was working to create a revolutionary working class. This piece of revolutionary rhetoric is interesting because it does not simply call for action in Germany. The authors wrote it to the worldwide proletariat class. "This great task cannot be accomplished by the German proletariat alone; it can only fight and triumph by appealing to the solidarity of the proletarians of the whole world."

The article itself is teeming with blame and a call to action. They blame the current government for all their problems--all the death and destruction that has been brought upon the working class. Furthermore, they blame capitalism: "The beast of capital that conjured up the hell of the world war is incapable of banishing it, of restoring real order, of insuring bread and work, peace and civilization, justice and liberty, to tortured humanity." Imbedded within the blame, the authors call the proletariat to action. They say, "Arise for the struggle! Arise for action! The time for empty manifestos, platonic resolutions, and high-sounding words is gone! The hour of action has struck for the International!" The whole article is filled with emotion and their desire is to not just change people's minds, but cause them to act.

The Plight of Overhead

In the nonprofit sector, there is an ideology about the amount of donated money can go to overhead. Overhead accounts for the funds used for advertising, fundraising, management, and some salaries. Within this stigma, there is also a negative view of nonprofit CEO's receiving a salary compared to the salary of a business CEO. In the past, the ratio of overhead to program costs was one of the only comparable financial ratios for nonprofits. In many ways, this was the only ratio that allowed people to see if nonprofits were fulfilling their mission. This was before the majority of nonprofits had websites and locations for donors to see exactly what impact the nonprofit was making.

Today, though, there is a changed frame of reference through increased transparency.  Part of this is due to law, and the other part is because nonprofits have realized that they are more likely to get donations if they get and keep their donor base involved. For instance, charity:water is known for transparency with its donor base. Anyone can click onto charity:water's website and see exactly where donated money is going. You can click on a map and see pictures and locations of each well they drill. Additionally, all nonprofits are required to give open access to their 990's. If someone wants to donate to any organization, they have all the resources needed to make an educated decision, making sure that their money is going to a good cause.

Therefore, while there has been a change in the availability of information regarding whether a nonprofit is actually successful, people still don't want to give their money to nonprofits with a perceived large overhead. Despite seeing all the impact that a nonprofit has, funders don't want their money to go to someone's salary. The problem with this idea is that nonprofit's need successful people to run the organization and successful people don't work for free. Passion only takes you so far until you need to pay the bills.

"We have a visceral reaction to the idea that anyone would make very much money helping other people. Interestingly that we don't have a visceral reaction to people making a lot of money not helping other people. you know, you want to make $50,000,000 selling violent video games to kids, go for it... but if you want to make $50,000 trying to cure kids of malaria, you are considered a parasite yourself" (Dan Pollotta).

Therefore, people ought to take more time truly understanding a nonprofit and not just look at overhead as a way to determine whether they are successful and accomplishing their mission. Stories and pictures tell a lot more than overhead ratios.

If the Discourse on Free Will Were Written in Utah 2015

The Protestant Reformation is largely accepted as beginning in 1517 when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on the Wittenburg Castle Church doors. This was the beginning of public questioning of the Catholic church in Europe, which, at the time, was the all-powerful church in all of Europe. There was no legal alternative for religious worship and those who were viewed as going against it's teachings were labeled as a heretic and possibly burned at the stake. While the nailing of the 95 theses could be labeled as a spark, what came after was a forest fire. Notable people began discussing religion and religious views, which began many sects that are still around today. Never before had so much debate been had, nor such a willing audience listened.

I believe that it is this context, the Protestant Reformation, that makes the Discourse on Free Will such an important and interesting work of literature. Since it was a time of confusion, people were asking questions and searching for answers that made sense based on what they knew as well as on what they hoped was true. Additionally, the church was one of, if not the, most important realm of an individual's life. Their whole lives revolved around worship.

So, what if the Discourse on Free Will were written today? I don't think it would make hardly a drop in the ocean and I definitely do not think that people would be reading it in another 500 years. There is so much information, so many books and so many articles being written today that something like this would probably be lost on the web. Perhaps a few people would click on a link talking about whether or not predestination is real or if we have free choice, but ultimately, I believe the following would be small and ultimately forgotten. Additionally, today we see an increasing secularism in our lives. Even for avid church-goers, people tend to separate their religious life with the rest of their lives (BYU and the culture we live in is quite unique). Therefore, I think that the context of the Discourse on Free Will is ultimately what makes the piece so important and relevant not only in the 1500's, but today. 

Of Language Acquisition

"Two days ago I saw a child that two men and a nurse, who said they were the father, the uncle, and the aunt of it, carried about to get money by showing it, by reason it was so strange a creature" (Montaigne). I likewise have been exposed to such a child, held as a curious sight, and one worth studying: In 1957 a child named Genie was born into a severely neglectful and abusive home. She was despised by her father before even reaching a year of age and was, from that point on, isolated and locked in her room in complete isolation. Most of this time she was either strapped to a toilet or tied to her bed. In this abusive situation she was restrained from almost all verbal communication, which ultimately resulted in not acquiring language. Even when she was removed and had specialists supporting her, she was never able to fully communicate. I couldn't help but think about Genie as we were talking about communication in class; her case illustrates that language is not just inherent, but needs to be learned through exposure. Additionally, it shows that language is important for growth in other areas of life such as IQ, thought, and communication. Similarly, two summers ago I met two little kids named Vlad and Natasha who I would like to introduce:

Natasha and Vlad were in a situation like Genie. They were severely neglected by their parents and for the first few years of their lives, they were generally chained to a radiator in the back of their mother's home as she had visits from strangers. Luckily, unlike Genie, they were found by ages 4 and 2 so they are now able to communicate and speak with only slight impediments. 

Based on these two stories, I believe that language is imperative for civilization to develop. People need to be able to convey ideas and express themselves in order to have society progress. On the other hand, people have questioned whether or not this is in fact true, that you need language, and perhaps actual language is not necessary. I don't believe that we would consider animal sounds to be a language, but animals are able to convey at least basic messages to one another through their noises. For instance, and elephant baby can call to it's mother and the mother knows exactly what is wrong. In this case, language is not necessary for them to survive, but perhaps language is necessary to progress. As far as I know, no other creature has developed into societies like humans. There are no cities, production lines, distribution processes, etc. for any animal species, but this is a trademark of humanity. Therefore, perhaps language isn't necessary for survival, but, in order for a civilization to develop and profess, we need language.

Feared? Loved? Can You Be Both?

I think it is important to understand the kairos and audience of Mariavelli's The Prince in order to understand the text. Machiavelli was a prosperous politician in Florence until he made enemies with the wrong people. During political upheaval, Machiavelli took a stance with the anti-Medici Republicans, which would have been good for his career had they not taken power. The Medici family became the new rulers of Florence and Machiavelli found himself exiled for the last 14 years of his life. It was during this time that he wrote The Prince. I believe that it is important to know the context or kairos here because it effects Machiavelli's audience. His immediate audience was the Medicis. Perhaps he wanted to give tips to the Medici's in hopes that they would bring him back into Florence to become a political advisor. Therefore, we should read The Prince knowing that Machiavelli was a politician who wanted to be welcomed back into society. 

With this in mind, I specifically want to discuss the following idea: “...one would like to be both the one (feared) and the other (loved); but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far safer to be feared than loved if you cannot be both.”

While it might be hard to combine being feared and loved, that is still seen as the ideal leader according the The Prince. This is a point that I agree with. I believe that the only leader who completely encompasses ultimate fear and love is God. It is up to your personal relationship with Him to decide whether you feel more fear or love, but His position demands that you fear and love Him.

Thinking of a society where the rulers were feared, I think about the early 1800's in the Cotton Belt. Slaves feared their masters and for good reason, blacks didn't have the right to go to court, to vote, or to leave without their masters permission. Additionally, a slave could be killed if they retaliated against punishments that their masters inflicted. In this society we know that fear did not win for the slaveholders. I know that my analysis breaks down because it wasn't the slaves that ultimately ended slavery and not every slave was afraid of their masters, but this does show that perhaps being feared is not the best type of leadership. 

"A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one"

I am someone who has lived thousands of lives:

I have started a nonprofit, receiving my inspiration from asking a little boy what he wanted. What did he want? A pencil. He wanted a chance to write, to create, to learn. 

I am a young girl who just wants an education. I know most people in my country don't want me to be educated, and a shot to the head was a powerful reminder of that. Despite the hardships that have come, I am still dedicated to education and to learning. 

I am a man who has lived in jail for 15 years because I want to convert to another religion. Even my father wants me dead, but I'm not giving up. I know that God is still here; he is watching over me and he loves me.

I am a soldier in the trenches of Germany. I didn't know what I was signing up for when I pledged my duty. I thought I was fighting against evil, but all I know is that the guy I'm looking at looks just as afraid as I am. 

I am the Pope around 800AD. I disguised myself as a man when my village was raided and my brother was killed. In order to continue my learning, I went to the monastery and told them my name was John, but it is actually Joan.

I am a Russian Cossack. I defend my family and my home, but mainly, I just hope that I can live another day. 

Sometimes I live my life in the present, but most of the time I spend my life in the past. I love reading and learning about other cultures and other peoples. I know that my life is different because of the stories that I read. I gain a little courage learning about Pope Joan, a little hope reading All Quiet on the Western Front, and a little determination from reading My Name is Muhammad. Reading is my own form of traveling when I need to stay at home. I can learn and grow without leaving the country.